Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it labels the tool as state-mutating, mentions the confirm=true guard, and discloses that archive permanently retires an opportunity. It could add more about reversibility or failure modes, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it leads with the three operations, immediately states the mutating nature, and then provides action-level guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a small three-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the core scenario, the guard, and the action outcomes. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe what a successful response looks like or how errors surface, which would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of each action value, including the nuance that activate publishes a proposed rule and archive permanently retires it, going beyond the bare enum labels.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Pause, activate, or archive a specific opportunity from get_opportunities.' It clearly identifies the exact actions and the source list, distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_opportunities and explain_opportunity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this after the merchant has explicitly picked an opportunity to act on.' It also explains what each action does, which helps the agent choose between activate, pause, and archive. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.